New Covid-19 Research has Stunning Findings!

I don't see the bodies bro. Where are they?

The 2017-2018 flu season, only three months long, killed more than 80,000 Americans. With a vaccine available. Covid's mortality rate is grossly exaggerated.

 

You never know with some of these live ones.

 

Nope.

But I've gotta hand it to the Democrats - they finally found a hoax that will burn the country to the ground.

Well played, & Hitler would be pleased with the Scorched Earth appraoch taken.

Vote Democrat 2020

 

Do NOT attribute comments to me that I did not make.

 

Yup.

 

Pure troll, but just like a busted clock, you get the last sentence right.

 

No, you've been spotted.

We don't know enough about SARS-CoV-2 to come to this conclusion.

 

That includes excess deaths, a lot of Corona numbers do not, at least not yet.

We will prob have 3 times 80,000 by the end of the year.

But forget the numbers, the stupid states are going to teach us a lesson.

 

Nope.

And just FYI, personal attacks not allowed.

I know you've only been here 5 years & maybe didn't know.

 

Covid-19 killed more than 1000 Americans yesterday.

 

Absolutely none.

 

Could be the last flu season that recorded as flu deaths people who died "WITH" the flu no matter the actual cause of death.
Could be the last flu season that had governors of the party opposing the President send sick people into nursing homes, trying to spike the death count for the purpose of steering a few votes their party's way.
Could be the last time radicals took their "ends justify means" rationale to the point of genocide just like the genocidal maniacs they embrace and are trying to emulate.

 

Try to contain your excitement.

 

"Could be" anything...but it's not

 

That's not excitement...it's a CAUTION

 

Can you share links to evidence of SARS-CoV-2 spreading more in sunlight than other corona viruses? This is the first I’ve heard of it and I’m interested in looking into it.

 

So corrupt even corruptocrats can't keep up

Fatal Motorcycle Crash Listed as COVID-19 Death in Florida

By Matt Margolis Jul 17, 2020

 

Perhaps COVID-19 isn't "WOKE", contrary to what we've been told by blue state mayors who encourage terrorists to riot, cough and spit on eachother.

 

Of course it’s not WOKE. It’s the Trump virus. LOL. It’s clearly racist, just look at the statistics. Bad as a bunch of cops...

 

This one was engineered for 'gain of function' in 2015 with US funding and the knowledge of Anthony Fauci.

 

I presume you know that the northern hemisphere is in peak summer and the virus is out of control in many of the hottest places on Earth? Does seasonal flu cause 1000 deaths per day in August in the US? Does seasonal flu give rise to 75000 cases per day in August in US. Same questions for Brazil, Iran, Iraq, México, India.......

 

How many people are killed by a cold?

 

UV light still kills the virus, it was engineered for gain of function. My guess is one of the functions maximized was its transmissibility, which is very high it seems.

 

"Some" believe a lot of things. Heck, some believe Trump should be President.

 

Thanks. OK, this said, even though I still think that the uncertainty regarding how many people have had the infection (like I said, might be 10 times more than the diagnosed cases which would push all these indexes down), to my UTTER surprise, it seems like this might not entirely be clueless and biased journalistic fearmongering but may be indeed happening to a concerning degree (although much smaller degree as I'll demonstrate). I receive a trade newsletter called MDedge and look at what I found in my email box this morning:

https://www.mdedge.com/cardiology/article/226328/heart-failure/heart-damage-even-after-covid-19-recovery-evokes-specter?ecd=wnl_evn_200731_mdedge_8pm&uac=350649AJ&utm_source=News_MDedge_eNL_073120_F&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Heart damage after COVID-19 ‘recovery’ evokes fear of later HF

"Heart damage even after COVID-19 "recovery" evokes spectrum of later HF"

HF stands for heart failure.

It's still not 3 in 4 of all patients with COVID-19 given the possibility that we are missing 9 out of 10 cases. But let's play with these numbers, even though we understand that there is significant uncertainty, and I don't want to be understood as an alarmist fearmonger, but for the sake of the argument, let's see what this would give us in population terms. This is of course only the worst possible scenario, and certainly there are best possible scenarios too (which I'll explore next), but for the sake of the argument, let's see how bad this might be if we get to the worst case scenario.

The study found 2/3 of aymptomatic and mildly to moderately symptomatic patients who recovered at home, showing lingering heart issues in 78% of them. Typically these are 80% of the confirmed cases, so 66% of 80% is 52.8%. Therefore, 78% of these, gets us to 41.2% of all confirmed cases. Then we have to add to these, the 1/3 of severe, hospitalized patients. Given that these are typically 20% of confirmed cases, that would give us 33% of 20% which is 6.6%, and when we apply the 78% to these, we have 5.1% of all confirmed cases. So now we have 41.2% + 5.1% which gives us 46.3% of all confirmed cases.

Now let's divide this by 10, to account for the possibility that we are missing 9 out of 10 asymptomatic cases, and let's hope that these are so incredibly mild that they don't have the same problem (which is an optimistic assumption, but again, let's not be alarmist).

So, we'd have 4.63% of all people with COVID-19 having some sort of lingering heart problems.

OK, this is not as bad as what the OP implied that 3 out of every 4 patients with COVID-19, diagnosed or not, will run into heart problems (75%). It would be reassuring to each individual person, that the odds of running into heart problems after COVID-19 would still be as low as 1 in 20.

But see, where this is concerning, is when we apply it to the US population as a whole.

Let's suppose again the worst case scenario that, say, this virus will ultimately get to 50% of the US population. That's not far-fetched because coronaviruses are notoriously infectious, and more so than the flu. Coronaviruses responsible for the common cold can get to most people in a population. Think of the fact that the average American catches the common cold 5 times per year. Sure, only 20% of the common colds are from coronaviruses, but that would still mean that that most average Americans would catch a coronavirus common cold once a year.

It's also not fair to estimate above that number, because if 50% of the population catches it, it might result in the contagion coming to a stop due to herd immunity. You calculate herd immunity as the reverse of the R0 number, that is, the reproduction number of the virus (it's 1 minus 1 divided by R0), which is estimated for this coronavirus to be, best case scenario, around 2.0, which gives us a Herd Immunity Threshold of 0.5 or 50% of the population getting to be immune to the virus, would stop the contagion. The worst case scenario is that the R0 has been estimated as high as 5.7 which would require 82.5% of the population catching it to result in herd immunity, but I don't want to go there, lest my numbers will start approaching catastrophic case scenarios and I think it's not appropriate.

So, let's get again the worst case scenario, that of not having a vaccine in time to cut down on this 50% number, or a vaccine not being effective enough. So let's keep the 50% of the population catching this thing.

That would mean 2.32% (half of the 4.63% we calculated before) of the US population getting some sort of lingering heart problem. Again, this is VERY far from the alarmist OP's source implying 75% of everybody... but in terms of public health and economic impact, this number is indeed huge. Just think of it: 2.32% of 331,000,000 Americans is 7,679,200 people!!!

In terms of economic burden of treating these people, lost productivity, and shortened life span, this is HUGE!!!

Now, let's step back a little... like I said, this is the worst case scenario. There are much better case scenarios. For one thing, maybe this lingering cardiac problems are only "lingering" because we are only 5 months into this, so maybe if we give these people 7 more months, within the year their hearts recover. After all the study only looked into a few weeks after recovery. Second, maybe we *will* have an effective and safe vaccine and it will add to the natural herd immunity so if we get the vaccine to protect, say, 30% of Americans (which is a fair assessment: it would imply that the vaccine would be accepted by 50% of Americans, which is in line with those who accept the flu shot, and would be protective at a rate of 60%, which is also in line with the average seasonal flu shot being protective between 40% in worse years to 80% in better years), only 20% more are needed for herd immunity.

That would mean that we'd cut down on the number of heart problems to two fifths or 3,071,680. But we can still keep going with the best case scenario. It's been hypothesized that people with type O blood are less susceptible to COVID-19 so presumably even if they get the virus they wouldn't have the heart damage. That's 37% of all Americans so we'd have to take them out of this number. What is left is 1,935,158 people. And, again best case scenario, we know that we have 75 million Americans below the age of 18. For various reasons (it is guessed that it may be because the youngsters have a lower level of ACE2 enzymes in their cells, which is an enzyme that the virus needs to invade cells) they are less susceptible. So we have to remove 22.6% from this number. This gives us 1,497,812 people. Finally, let's also get another 5% out, as it's been guessed that maybe 1 in 20 people have natural immunity, from having encountered more frequently other common cold coronavirus in the past, to this novel coronavirus. Now we are left with 1,422,921.

Let's understand that my "best case scenario" is indeed STRONGLY the best one, because I'm taking out huge chunks of less susceptible people, while the study only found 23% of people not having this, so maybe the less susceptible ones are only 23% and these type O and youngsters and naturally immune ones are already counted among those 23% and these factors haven't protected others so well. But again, when we say "best" we need to be frankly optimistic so I'll keep my method.

OK, so, *IF* the findings of this small study are confirmed (see, the study was with only 100 people), we'd have this:

Best case scenario, 1,422,921 Americans will be subject to a potential heart risk by the end of the pandemic
Worst case scenario, 7,679,200 Americans will be subject to a potential heart risk by the end of the pandemic

Again, *supposing* that this small study is subsequently confirmed by larger ones (not a given), I'd say that regardless of whether we run into the best case scenario or the worst one (or more likely something in-between), this *is* indeed concerning from the standpoint of public health and economic impact, which would result in the advice that we should indeed try to be careful now, until hopefully a vaccine is available.

That doesn't mean lockdowns... but just, sensible and common-sense precautions such as avoiding close proximity to others whenever possible, washing hands or hand-sanitizing after touching high-traffic surfaces, avoiding gatherings with more than 5 or 10 people, avoiding concerts, bars and restaurants and other closed spaces with a lot of people, and, more controversial, wearing face masks. The mask debate is a hugely different topic and I have lots of opinions on this (given the small size of the coronavirus, 0.1micron, only certain kinds of masks worn the proper way, can be relatively effective to reduce risk, but it's not at all what the population is wearing, and how they are wearing them, so effectiveness is low, but there ARE ways to make it better if people would listen, but I'm not optimistic that anybody would, in significant numbers) but I don't want to derail or hijack the topic here, which is the cardiac risks for people who have recovered from COVID-19.

My overall conclusion: it's too late for me, but even if it's the best case scenario, I should indeed advise my daughter-in-law who is a medical student, to go into Cardiology, if this small study is confirmed, haha. Lots of business for cardiologists, for sure... But yes, now that I read the MDedge article, this *is* concerning, if confirmed.

Sorry for the long post. The statistical treatment of the matter is complex enough to be only clearly explored with a long post.

Cheers.